9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Disposal of seized property under Section 523 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. 2. Controversy over the handing over of cash amount to Customs authorities. 3. Validity of the trial Magistrate's order regarding the possession of the seized property. 4. Requirement of giving an opportunity to claimants to adduce evidence in such cases. 5. Interpretation of Section 523 of the old Code regarding the disposal of seized property. Analysis: The judgment revolves around the recommendation of the Additional District Judge to set aside the trial Magistrate's order regarding the handing over of seized property to the Customs authorities. The case involved a green car carrying a significant amount of cash, gold sovereigns, and a pistol, intercepted by the police based on secret information. The police registered cases under various sections including the Foreign Exchange Regulations Act and the Customs Act. The controversy arose when multiple claimants, including the Customs Department and a newly registered firm, staked their claim to the cash amount. The trial Magistrate ruled in favor of the Customs Department, leading to objections from other claimants. The Additional District Judge supported the claimants' argument that they were not given an opportunity to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses, citing a previous court decision. The judgment delves into the provisions of Section 523 of the old Code, granting discretion to the Magistrate for the disposal of seized property. It emphasizes the need for a fair opportunity for claimants to establish their rights to the property. The court highlighted the distinction between property continuing as case property versus being freed from such status, impacting the rights of claimants based on possession or ownership. The judgment rejected the recommendation to set aside the trial Magistrate's order, citing the detailed and reasoned decision made. It emphasized that the Customs authorities were tasked with determining if the seized property violated relevant laws, justifying the Magistrate's decision to hand over the property to them for adjudication. The judgment referenced legal precedents to support the decision, emphasizing the importance of the Customs authorities' role in determining the final disposal of the property. Ultimately, the court dismissed the revision petition, upholding the trial Magistrate's order and affirming the decision to hand over the seized property to the Customs Department for further adjudication and disposal in accordance with the law.
|
